Genetic Defects From Inbreeding?

They say we all come from Adam and Eve.

So all acts of sex are incest and inbreeding.

Science says that incest causes genetic disorders as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

So the question I have is since every single act of sex is incest and inbreeding since we all come from one man and one woman, how is it most of us don't suffer these defects?

Or are we all suffering from defects that science has not been able to detect yet?

 

You are assuming the premise of that we all come from Adam & Eve, and basing your opinion on that premise and thus committing the logical fallacy of begging the question - http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

 

Well, non-religious solutions do not really solve this problem any more than Adam and Eve does. In biology, the term minimal viable population is sometimes used to describe the number of individuals that are required in order to have the cause the diversity that can save a population from genetic wipeouts, and it is around 4000 individuals (it should be noted that the 4000 number is an average over species and the number also takes into account things like natural disasters, so don't take the number as gospel, but the concept exists).

Sure, during a precious time, there must have been less than 4000 individuals and during that time, humanity (or rather, those forefathers of humanity that split from another species) would be open to genetic problems, but those have either been dealt with after that period by evolution, or have become natural in humans. It should be noted that many genetic changes like this happens over large populations, larger than 4000 people, so I'm not claiming that this happens every time a species evolves, but it does happen. I seem to recall native South American tracing their genes back to a total of 10 females or something like that (so it's also not the dawn of a new species every time it happens)

 

Wouldn't the existence of this thread be proof of genetic defects?

 

Your first mistake is treating Genesis as "history"........ Go deeper.. Adam and Eve were once 90 feet tall and lived a thousand years.

 

exactly, the risk increases, but doesn't mean the risk will happen

kinda like smoking, if you smoke you increase the chance of lung disease, but fact is, even if you smoke, you may never get such a disease

 

Wives were created for some per the Bible so we would have had genetic variation from then (and we would all be descendants of Noah as well).

 

There are Bible Thumpers, Bible Readers and Bible Haters.

Quite clear where you fall in this selection.

 

Then there are the ignorant ... who read the scripture as if they were 9 years old.

 

Hemophilia figured prominently in the history of European royalty in the 19th and 20th centuries. Britain's Queen Victoria, through two of her five daughters (Princess Alice and Princess Beatrice), passed the mutation to various royal houses across the continent, including the royal families of Spain, Germany and Russia. Victoria's son Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany suffered from the disease. For this reason, haemophilia was once popularly called "the royal disease". Tests of the remains of the Romanov imperial family show that the specific form of haemophilia passed down by Queen Victoria was probably the relatively rare Haemophilia B.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty

 

Three out of three ain't bad.....I read it and I hate it and I damn sure don't thump. It's rank bullschit designed to control the masses and collect some of their money.

 

This assumes that early humans all evolved from a single source. If one puts mythology aside and considers the possible scenarios of human evolution without the taint of primitive creation myths clouding one's judgment, then there is no reason to expect that modern humans ever experienced such a genetic bottleneck. It is much more likely that there were a wide variety of humanoid creatures who descended from different bloodlines and bred with other proto-humans who were not their own family members.

As for Christian apologetics, the prevailing theory is that humans were perfect when they were created and that the human race has actually devolved, rather than having evolved over time.

 

You can't inject genetic variation by cloning a wife from a rib.

 

Well... if we are going to use da bible as our historical authority for this discussion, you will find mankind was created before Adam and Eve.

Then in...

According to da bible, Adam must have been a special science project, versus the rest of mankind.

So Adam and Eve couldn't have been the only folks running around.

 

Maybe so... We should just be thankful that Noah was such a font of genetic diversity.

 

Cain met his wife in the land of Nod.

The Bible makes no sense at all. There are plenty of "rational" (non-empirical) explanations for every event, and they all seem to differ, but for those who need proof, the Bible is pretty flimsy.

 

Nothing wrong with kissing cousins, eh?

 

The only way the bible can make sense to me, is if I assume Al Mighty Gawdt was a space alien who bee ess'd his chillrinz into thinking he was omnipotent. Otherwise events like "god rested on the 7th day" make no damn sense. Why would an omnipotent god need to take a rest???

 

If you study history of the times, archeology, the politics, tribal identity etc... it makes sense without going to science fiction.

 

How would any anthropic studies explain why an all powerful being needs to take a nap?

 

That is didactic literature and teaching narrative to give God human attributes.

 

It ain't easy being omnipotent. God needed some beer and some football with the boys.

I totally understand your point. Every time I hear someone ask, "Why would God create an imperfect world?", the answer always seems to be, "To challenge the doubters."

There's always an answer, but never any evidence. To be fair, this is true for all religions. Even when they do present empirical evidence, like the eye argument, it's nonsense. "The eye is complex, therefore it must have been designed intelligently" is a silly argument. It's an effort to use empirical evidence (something you can observe, like the eye) to prove their claims. A far better empirical explanation is evolution.

 

Now that's the kinda gawd I could get behind, if he liked Budweiser and StL Cardinal baseball.

Ya know I have my own theory about the mechanism behind evolution. Random chance mutations and aboigenesis I have trouble reconciling. The evolutionary method I postulate suggest species are self designing thru natural selection. I'll should start another thread about it tho since it's way off topic of the OP.

 

Is there a reason we need anthropisize god?

 

Boy, nothing is ay about the bible or anything just can not be said without some retardsa getting all kinds of upset at me an insulting me for no reason.

Insulting me tells me more about you than it does me.